Tag Archives: leadership

The relationship between leader and followers seems pretty straight forward: Leader lead! Followers follow! But according to Barbara Kellerman; significant shifts in technology and culture have changed that dynamic, giving followers more power… According to Ronald E. Riggio; good followers support and aid the leader when he or she is doing the right thing and stand up to the leader– having the courage to let the leader know– when he or she is doing something wrong or headed in the wrong direction… Many of the same qualities that are admired in leaders, e.g.; competence, motivation, intelligence… are the same qualities needed in the best followers. Moreover leaders, regardless of their level, also need to follow…

Follow the leader is often the easy way out. You might feel that it’s your responsibility as a leader to share your vision, rally the troops and be ‘the one’ who grants permission to others to move forward… But this traditional style of leadership is– flat, boring, mostly ineffective… True leadership comes from stepping aside and allowing others to lead… According to Warren Bennis and James MacGregor Burns; effective followership is crucial for organizations to survive. Even the best leaders cannot be successful without courageous ‘star’ followers, and the qualities of these ‘star’ followers are the same that qualities possessed by the most effective leaders…

In the article Best Leaders are Great Followers by Michael Hyatt writes: If you want to be a great leader, you must first become a great follower… Although it’s rarely discussed, this is where almost all of history’s greatest leaders got their start… Also, history’s worst leaders never learned to follow… As a result they became tyrants making the lives of their followers miserable. So what does a great follower look like? It’s suggested that great followers share at least these characteristics:

They understand the role: You can’t be a good follower unless you have clearly identified the leader. While you may be a leader in your own realm, everyone has a boss… Great followers not only accept this fact, they embrace it…

They are obedient: While obedience may be a politically incorrect concept, it’s essential for organizational effectiveness. No one should be allowed to give orders who can’t obey orders. This is how great leaders model the standards of acceptable behavior to their followers…

They are servants: This is crucial. Great followers are observant. They notice what needs to be done to help the leader accomplish his or her goals. Then they do it joyfully, without grumbling or complaining…

They are humble: Great followers don’t make it about them. They are humble. They shine the light on the leader. They make their boss look good, especially in front of his or her boss…

They are loyal: Great followers never speak ill of their boss in public. This doesn’t mean they can’t disagree or even criticize. Great followers understand that public loyalty leads to private influence…

In the article Leader-Follower Theory by David Robertson writes: The leader-follower relationship is critical in the grand scheme of an organization. Essentially it equates to the concept that leaders and followers are in-fact working together: The leader is willing to lead; the follower is willing to follow. It’s not to say that a follower could not be the leader, or that the leader could not be a follower. Instead, it says that the team– leader and followers– come together and work towards a common goal with the roles defined as necessary…

According to Gilbert and Matviuk; in a leader-follower relationship– followership escapes the box of simple subordination and obedience and opens up opportunities for innovative followership that generates and enhances growth for both leader and followers…This relationship benefits everyone within the organization: It equates to greater efficiency and higher job satisfaction for both follower and leader… The ‘leader-follow theory’ demonstrates that the end result should be the symbiosis of leader and follower working together to reach a common goal while at the same time enriching one another in their roles…

In the article Great Leader Learn to Follow by Ronald E Riggio write: There is a common misconception that you are either a leader or a follower: Not true. The reality is that all leaders must also follow. Research suggests that best leaders are also best followers. Effective leadership and effective followership have much in common– knowing how to follow makes a better follower, or a better leader… According to Robert Kelley; there are different types of followers, e.g.:

Sheep: Followers who passively wait for leaders to give them directions or motivate them; they do nothing until told…

Yes-performers: Followers who expect the leader to make all decisions… The problem with ‘yes-performers’ is that they don’t take any initiative in moving things forward…

Alienated: Followers who are independent who think they know best, and aren’t afraid to challenge the leader. Their skepticism and cynicism can create a lot of negativity in organizations…

Pragmatics: Followers who watch out for themselves and back whoever they think will ultimately benefit them. They defend the status quo…

Star-performers: Followers who are active, positive, and work in unison with the leader to achieve the desired outcome. They are ‘leaders in disguise’…

Followership is not the opposite of leadership: Followership is not blind obedience… Followership is the effective collaboration with the leader to achieve the desired outcomes… According to Barry Reynolds; followers are not merely minions who do as they are told, on the contrary, the traits of effective followership closely match those of effective leadership… Just as you expect the best leaders to be highly competent, credible, genuine… you also expect those traits from the best followers. Without competentfollowers organizations cannot achieve success…

The key to understanding the relationship between the leader and follower is recognizing that no one is either one type or the other… Leaders are expected to provide vision, motivation, direction… and followers are expected to support the leaders in achieving results. Neither role operates in vacuum; it’s mutual beneficial relationship and impossible to have one without the other… If you are preparing yourself for a leadership role within the organization, there is no better place to begin than practicing the role of an effective follower…

Rule #1: Shut-up and Listen! That means Stop Talking! When you are talking you are not listening. This rule also applies to the talking inside your head, as well… When you are thinking intently about what you want to say you are not listening to what is being said… According to OpProf; in a rapidly changing world smart leaders find more business opportunities by listening rather than by talking. Many leaders insist-persist in dogmatic soliloquy, in which the audience is disinterested, disengaged, dying for someone to end their misery; wake-up no one is listening…

Yammering– that’s what stupid leaders do– they yammer-on about something they think is important but the audience has long since quit listening. Whereas smart leaders know when to shut-up and listen… According to Mike Figliuolo; if you simply want others around you to think you’re brilliant, there’s an easy and elegant way to do so: Just shut-up, listen... Remember that the letters in the word ‘listen’ also spell ‘silent’… According to Mike Myatt; show me a leader who doesn’t know the value of listening to others, and I will show you a train-wreck in the making… The irony is that when a leader is relaxed, doesn’t try to impress people– they are much more engaging and inspirational. Smart leaders know when to shut-up and listen…

In the article Are You Listening or Just Waiting to Talk? by Daniel Newman writes: Is listening a lost art? In a world full of so much to say, it can be hard to really listen, but to be an effective leader, you must listen… Some leaders struggle to be a good listener because their mind tends to play chess. Constantly thinking about what is next or what else needs to be done. However, if you want to move business relationships forward there is nothing more compelling than being a great listener… It’s the act of focusing on what another person is saying, rather than preparing for what you want to say; it allows you to connect and gain real understanding of other people. It’s simple; just stop waiting to talk, and start ‘really’ listening…

In the article Leaders Need to Learn to Shut-up and Listen by Ken Gosnell writes: Leaders like to talk; they like to inspire people through words. They like to cast a vision, and challenge the status quo. These are all necessary qualities for effective leadership, however, smart leaders also understand the power of silence… According to Lao Tzu; silence is a source of great strength… Great leaders learn how to add more silence into their lives… According to Jennifer V. Miller; most leaders would say they foster a ‘speak-up’ culture, but many quashing other people’s ideas before they can come to light:Leaders must understand the importance of their silence and allow others to speak-up… A few critical times when leaders should practice silence:

Leaders should practice the art of silence when they want to learn something: You cannot learn when you are talking. Learning and personal development come through silence and reflection…

Leaders should practice the art of silence when they want to hear new ideas and innovative thinking: A leader who hopes to inspire others in effective brainstorming and creativity must practice silence. The leader’s silence encourages and empowers others to speak. The leader’s silence communicates the desire for others to share their thoughts and perspectives…

Leaders should practice the art of silence when they are not up to speed on the topic: One fatal flaw that can sabotage the leader in the eyes of followers is when they speak on subjects or topics that they know little or nothing… Abraham Lincoln was known to have said; better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt…

In the article Why People Talk Too Much by Lydia Dishman writes: Research shows people’s favorite subject to discuss is themselves. People spend 60% of conversations talking about themselves, and 80% when chatting on social media; apparently it just feels good… But this propensity to pontificate is at odds with most people’s collectively dwindling attention spans…

Silence is a greatly underestimated source of power: In silence you can hear not only what is being said, but also what is not being said… In silence it can be easier to reach the truth. Abraham Lincoln’s genius for power was simple; see people, hear people. Take-in the thoughts of all people, no matter what their ideology, or class background. Today we call that empathy; the understanding of what other people– think, feel, say…

The big miss for most leaders is that they fail to understand that the purpose of communication is not to message, but to engage… and this requires listening. Don’t be fooled into thinking that being heard is more important than hearing… Almost universally, the smartest person in the room is not the one doing all the talking, it’s the person asking the relevant engaging questions, and very carefully listening to the answers… Leadership is about action but many leaders simply don’t listen, hence they don’t understand the critical issues that they must decide… and that’s a reason many organizations under-perform. Great talkers are a dime a dozen, but great listeners are a rarity…

Clueless leaders are like dirty socks, even though you really don’t want them around but you still keep them around, until the odor becomes too unbearable. Have you ever been told about or experienced a decision made by a leader and asked: Is that ‘leader’ on stupid pills? Or, have you ever asked: How could a ‘leader’ be so much out of touch? These types of leaders are clueless– they just don’t have any ‘clue’ about how things really work in their organizations…

Well you are not alone: According to Hagberg; manyleaders make decisions with a highly distorted view of what’s really going on in an organization… And unfortunately many organizations hold onto these clueless leaders far too long to point of; disaster, destruction… Maybe this sounds a little too dramatic but clueless leaders have some very bad traits, e.g.; lack empathy, don’t listen, resist change, too bossy, wishy-washy, poor decisions… According to Abraham Lincoln; nearly everyone can stand adversity but if you want to test someones character, give them power…

In the article Organizations from Hell: When Leaders Fails by Ronald E Riggio writes: Most dysfunctional organizations have big issues at the top; they have leaders that are clueless; they cause unnecessary disruption, they are unable to define a vision, they lack the insight to develop a productive workforce, they are unaware of the toxicity in their own organization… Clueless leaders are hoarders; they refuse to share power, delegation responsibility. The ability to wisely, effectively delegate is crucial for success– effective delegation is one of the keys to achieving goals…

A leader who insists on maintaining all control and full authority is insecure and actually fails to even meet the definition of a leader. A leader is an executive, a person who manages time, resources, people… A leader does not do everything themselves, they work to marshals all of these elements on a pathway to success… Many clueless leaders are byproduct of the Peter Principle, i.e.; people move up chain of command until they reach their level of incompetence. Although research has not established existence of the Peter Principle, in some organizations this does indeed happen…

In the book Why Business Leaders Fail by Sydney Finkelstein writes: Why do high-flying organizations fail… It turns out many leaders at failing or failed organizations are clueless; and often they have they have common habits-traits… and these traits are early warning signs:

Think they are fully in control: Leaders who vastly overestimate the extent to which they actually control events and vastly underestimate the role of chance and circumstance in success… Leaders who fall prey to this belief suffer from the illusion of personal preeminence…

Think they have all the answers: Leaders who are invariably crisp and decisive tend to settle issues so quickly that they have, in many situations, no opportunity to grasp the full ramifications. Worse, these leaders need to feel they have all the answers and they aren’t open to learning new ones…

Ruthlessly eliminate anyone who doesn’t get with the plan: Leaders who eliminate all dissent, contrasting views… cut themselves off from the best chance of seeing, correcting problems… Sometimes leaders who seek to stifle dissent only drive it underground. Once this happens, the entire organization is in jeopardy…

Stubbornly rely on what worked in the past: Leaders who revert to what they regard as tried-and-true methods, often cling to static, out-dated business model. They insist on engaging markets that no longer exists, or they fail to consider innovations in areas other than those that made their organization successful, in the past… Instead of considering options that fit new circumstances, their only point of reference are things that succeeded in the past…

In the article Distorted Views of Many Leaders by Dr. Hagberg write: Leaders live in a bubble and have special privileges and power due to their unique role… However, most fail to recognize consequences of their position’s power… Leaders are often out-of-touch with how their own behavior impacts the organization, and how it’s being interpreted by employees and other stakeholders… They fail to realize the extent to which they unconsciously shape organization’s culture. However, with power comes the potential for isolation and insulation…

Leaders who are not getting continuous, accurate information about an organization’s culture, values, attitudes, morale… have the potential to suffer distortions in perspective, which can negatively impact the quality of their decisions. A distorted view from the leaders can ultimately prove fatal. According to Gallup; only one-in-five (18%) leaders demonstrate a high-level of attitude for leadership, while another two-in-ten (20%) show a basic talent for it…

This means that many organizations are missing-the-mark, 82% of the time, clueless or near-clueless leaders are hired… According to Mike Myatt; because someone holds a position of leadership doesn’t necessarily mean they should; not all leaders are created equal… The problem many organizations seem to suffer is one of recognition; they can’t seem to recognize good leaders from clueless ones…

The basic flaw and inefficiency in picking leaders costs hundreds of billions of dollars, annually… It’s common practice for organizations to promote from within because– these are loyal people who paid their dues… because they supposedly earned it, deserve it… rather than because they have the talent for it… Many organizations waste a lot– time, energy, resources… hiring clueless leaders– either from within or outside the organization– then they attempt to train them to be who they are not. Nothing fixes– clueless leaders…

Want to build great organization? Then don’t start with a ‘good’ person as leader; start with a ‘tough‘ person as leader, and adapt as necessary… According to Rob Asghar; most of the modern leadership development industry is based on myth: It’s feel-good myth, spread by consultants, academics, gurus… about who makes the best leaders.

The experts suggest that the best leaders are– collaborative, compassionate, empathetic, free of most defects of character: But it’s false… The‘best’ leaders are consistently flawed– however, more important; they are visionaries, they have ability to get things done, ability to sell ideas, ability to take an organization into new/different directions, ability to deal with crisis…

According to Michael Maccoby; it’s the narcissists who come closest to the collective image of the ‘best’ leader… for two reasons; they have compelling, even gripping, visions for organizations, and they have an ability to attract followers… Productive narcissists understand the vision thing particularly well, because by nature they are people who see the ‘big’ picture; they don’t try to understand the future, but they do attempt to create the future…

To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw; some people see things as they are, and ask why… narcissists see things that never were, and ask why not. Ultimately the ‘best’ leader, has a foundation of ‘bad’ qualities– classic nasty competitive streak, excessive risk-taking, dangerous stubbornness, it’s all about me attitude… But then its the role of the organization to add the restraints, the wisdom, the compassion and the other qualities that keep these ‘best’ leaders from racing off a cliff in their zeal… This notion of a leader is quite different from what most management gurus are trying to sell…

In the article Can Bad People be Good Leaders? by Ray Pennings writes: To assume that all good leaders are good people is to be will-fully blind to reality of the human condition…Worse it may cause leaders, themselves, to think that because they are leaders they are good people, therefore they are– trustworthy, brave, generous… and never deceitful, cowardly, greedy… However, it’s only when people recognize and manage their failings can they achieve greatness. Both good and evil run through hearts of leaders, and so making absolute distinctions can be difficult; but the difficulty of applying distinctions is no reason to euthanize them…

The best leaders– inspire people, which involves holding before them worthwhile goals and affirming their gifts of humanity, including; their gift of free choice, and in working together to achieve goals… Even when the tactics of coercion are utilized, they must be utilized in a manner that maintains respect for the ‘imago dei’ imprinted on each person. The choice may be for, or against an action with understood consequence, but enabling that choice on the part of followers is an imperative duty of the leader…

In the article Leadership-Development Programs Fail by Pierre Gurdjian, Thomas Halbeisen, Kevin Lane write: U.S. organizations spend almost $14 billion annually on leadership development… Colleges and universities offer hundreds of degree courses on leadership, and the cost of customized leadership-development programs from the top business school can reach over $100K per year/per person… Moreover in a Gallup poll; upward of 500 executives were asked to rank their top three human-capital priorities, and leadership development was included as both a current and a future priority…

In the poll, almost two-thirds of respondents identified leadership development as a number-one concern… also only 7% of executives polled think that their organizations develop ‘good’ leaders effectively… and around 30% of organizations admit that they have failed to exploit their business opportunities fully because they lack enough ‘good’ leaders with the right capabilities… Hence, there are too many training initiatives that rest on the assumption that one size fits all and that same group of skills or style of leadership is appropriate regardless of strategy, organizational culture, executive mandates…

In the article Bad Leadership Happens to Good People by Doug Dickerson writes: Bad leaders are the exception not the rule. One does not have to look far to find examples of bad leaders and that is part of the problem… We tend to find and focus on the bad and ignore the good: Mark Twain aptly said; few things are harder to put-up with than the annoyance of a good example; hence for every– politician, coach, executive, clergy… who give their brand a bad name… there are far more who play by the rules and serve their organizations well…

Since people hold leaders to a higher standard of behavior and service, it becomes the responsibility of leaders to step-up and deliver– even when ‘bad’ leaders happens to be ‘good’ people… Showing goodness is what gives others a reason to believe and do the right thing… According to Phil Taylor; one’s ability to interact in a positive and effective way with others is clearly an most important skill in leadership… However, when ‘bad’ leaders happens to be ‘good people’, unfortunately they must work harder to overcome their failings, or recognize that they may lack the qualities of a ‘good’ leader…

Majority of good leaders are good people, but sometimes a good leaders lose their way as they rise to the top… Leaders are humans and they can be seduced by many bad things… According to Johns Mendez; ‘power’ is a very corruptible, intoxicating force and it can make a leader lose perspective. Leaders require constant reminding to focus on– good ‘ethic’ behavior and organizational ‘values’, as well as the bottom line… Bad leaders are easily exposed; they are out of touch with reality…

Lousy leaders are everywhere– business, politics, education, government… it’s not very difficult to identify a crisis in leadership… According to Michael Hyatt; characteristics of lousy leaders, include; arrogance, disorganized, over-promise and under-deliver, don’t articulate clear vision, not transparent, blind to their organizations, don’t hold people accountable– especially themselves… Pick your crisis and you’ll usually find one of these traits of a lousy leader in action, often many of them at once…

According to Bill George; the simplistic notions of ‘good or bad’ only clouds an understanding of why a leader might lose their way– it’s not necessarily because they are bad person, but rather they just don’t have the ‘right’ stuff…

Very few people go into a leader’s roles to cheat or do evil, yet most people have the capacity for these type actions, unless they stay grounded… Before person considers a leader’s role, they should ask very simple question;

Why be a leader: What’s the purpose? And if the answer is– power, prestige, money… then that leader is at risk of relying heavily on external gratification for fulfillment, which is not necessarily wrong… but there should also be stronger, deeper motivation to improve the sustainability of the organization and make a lasting contribution to all its stakeholders…

Leadership is very difficult, but having– courage, toughness, conviction to do what is ‘right’ for the organization is the sign of the ‘best’ leaders; and the notion of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is a secondary issue…

Primeval nomadic tribes represent a lost ‘golden age’ of humanity… For hundreds of thousands of years, uncomplicated people with basic survival skillful traveled around in their tribal communities. They followed the seasonal cycles and existed– naturally, simply, harmoniously, in tune and unchanging within their environment…

Research shows that they didn’t have to work hard to fulfill their needs, they had plenty of leisure time, there was little or no disease, no poverty… Far from the Victorian depiction of depraved half-starved savages, the lives of the ancient human ancestors were structured, well- organized, flourished for thousands of years…

According to research; at least one-fifth of the Neanderthal genome may lurk within modern humans… findings revealed that Neanderthals interbred with ancestors of modern humans when modern humans began spreading out of Africa perhaps about 40,000 to 80,000 years ago, although some research suggests the migration began earlier: About 1.5 to 2.1% of the DNA of any human outside of Africa is Neanderthal in origin.)

According to David Miles; humans, as opposed to primitive ancestors, have developed a modern world which is psychologically, socially, materially excessively complicated and unsustainable…Apparently humans have lost the essential values, as originally laid out by nature and promulgated through ancient ancestors, and are struggling to accommodate the demands of modern world psychology… According to Catherine Perigo; tribal communities of primitive ancestors were not motivated by the ‘self’; they were guided by the spirit of the tribe, which exists outside of themselves, not internal to themselves…

In the article ‘Primeval Managers’ Offer Modern Lesson in Success by Quinn Spitzer and Ron Evans write: One of the most important changes in the business world has gone unnoticed: the changing of the guard in business leadership with executives, such as; Packard at Hewlett-Packard, Morita at Sony, Walton at Wal-Mart, Walsh at G.E., just to name a few… Virtually an entire generation of top executives have left business after achieving legendary status…

These ‘old guards’ are the last of a breed of executives who developed their management skills almost entirely in the workplace. They built businesses when management ‘science’ was still in its infancy. The executives of this period did not learn about business from– business schools, or management gurus, or management books… they learned and honed their business skills in the hard-knocks of a primitive ‘business jungle’: These were ‘primeval managers’… These executives were not just people of action, but people of thought– critical thought– and raw primeval instincts…

In the article Primal Experience in Business by Ben Gran writes: Every business can learn something from this idea of the customer’s ‘primeval’ experience… Most people don’t buy things because of rational, specific needs; most often they make their buying decisions based on emotional needs, i.e.; subtle signals and connections that make you feel better. It’s not your ‘rational brain’ that makes the decision as often as the ‘lizard brain’ that wants to feel safe, comforted, protected…

Hence, you must ask: What is your business really selling, deep down? What is the ‘primeval’ experience that makes customers want to buy from you? Not every business’s ‘primeval’ experience is the same. You must know exactly what ‘you’ are offering customers on a ‘primeval’ level– talk to customers about why they buy… Forging these deep emotional connections with customers is the most effective form of business marketing… If you know why people buy and you ‘forge deep’ into the fundamental reasons, then you can design a customer experience that will tap directly into that ‘primeval’ experience…

In the article Super-Abundance, Art of Consumption Reduction by Annabel Martin writes: How many of you know the difference between; What you need? and; What you want? Where is the dividing line? and; Is that line the same for everyone? and; Is your business investing in the right things? Modern consumer psychology, left unchecked, unrestrained, is running amuck…

In contrast our primeval ancestors would be horrified by the collection and hoarding of the vast amount of ‘stuff’ by modern-day relatives… Material wealth was not only impractical for the primitive ancestors, but it also brought with it a psychology unfitness for tribal life; to hoard or accumulate superfluous stuff would be considered unhealthy… Primitively; it’s thought that a preoccupation with a mundane stuff brings bad luck, sickness, lack of food…

There is much you can learn from the primeval ancestors in practical terms, and it starts by being absolutely clear about; What your needs really are; and; What they are not;The absolutes of primeval life were; responsible, living with nature, reciprocal exchange at the heart of every transaction… ‘Responsibility’ and ‘reciprocal exchange’ are ancient principles based on the idea that you should never take more than you need and when you do, then you are likely to disrupt a fine-tuned, natural balance, not only in the wider world around you but also within your own personal life…

Living responsibly, not only helps to save the earth’s precious natural resources, but it also helps you to have power over limited finances and unhealthy material stuff… These ancient principles are not designed to make people suffer or go without; they are about making life simpler, enjoying what you have, and being absolutely firm in the face of the psychology of ‘abundance’, which has been designed over decades to make you want more ‘stuff ‘ then you absolutely need…

In the article Leadership Secrets From The Ancients by Matthew Knight writes: There are certain elements of leadership that survive the centuries, that are classical. According to John Prevas; the parallels between great leaders of the ancient world and today is stunning… And while these features aren’t necessarily a guarantee of success in the modern world, they can provide a framework around which success can be built, for example:

Alexander the Great (356-323 BC): Alexander III of Macedon is the standard for leadership by which all others are measured, but– does he merit his place as a leadership icon? It’s questionable… On the one hand, Alexander had a capacity for intense focus and was willing to sacrifice friends, family and personal fortunes to reach the top. But ambition fueled by a massive ego eventually proved to be his undoing… Ancient quote:“I see no limits to what man of ability can accomplish“. Modern lesson:Youth is no barrier to success: Be bold and learn to focus on your task, but don’t let your ambition or ego cloud your judgment. Listen to the advice of those more experienced than yourself…

Xenophon (circa 435-circa 354 BC): Xenophon was student of the Athenian philosopher Socrates and ruled by consensus. An aristocrat by birth, Xenophon was a Greek military leader, but unlike Alexander the Great, Xenophon didn’t command by force of his personality, but sought to forge consensus. What makes Xenophon so unique as a leader is that he was not a soldier, he was a philosopher. He was elected by the soldiers to be the leader based on his ability to articulate a course of action for them… Ancient quote:“In life a leader must resign himself to expect anything and never count on anyone but himself”. Modern lesson:Tailor your message to your audience and be sensitive to the moods and opinions of the people you manage…

Augustus (63 BC-AD 14): Augustus laid the foundations for the prolonged success of the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar famously built the Roman Empire by conquest, but it was Augustus, his nephew and first Roman Emperor, who administered it and took it to its greatest heights… Augustus believed that the conquering achievements of Alexander the Great were actually easy when compared to the task of administering and building an empire.. Ancient quote:“That which has been done well enough has been done quickly enough”.Modern lesson: Augustus said: “Make haste slowly”: In other words, “move cautiously and thoughtfully in everything you do”…

Cleopatra (69 BC-30 BC): Ancient Egypt’s last pharaoh is often feted for her seductive beauty. But Cleopatra was also a woman of high intelligence, as evidenced by her grasp of several languages. She was a tenacious and resourceful leader who adopted a ‘hands-on’ approach to power; consolidating her position through civil war with her brother and sister (Ptolemy XIII and Arsinoe IV). She was a realist and wasn’t afraid to gamble on bringing in a more powerful ally when that was what the situation called for, as shown by her personal and political courtship of Julius Caesar and Rome. Ancient quote:Cleopatra’s attitude to power and life could be best summed up with the phrase: “Let it be done”.Modern lesson:Leaders who back up their god-given attributes with hard work and imagination can create a formidable business package…

In the primeval and ancient worlds, altruism is not driven by unconditional love but by ritualistic practice… According to Annabel Martin; primitive tribal life was not born simply out of the will of individuals wanting to do the right thing, just for the sake of doing the right thing… Translated in modern business terms, it means; when you put someone in an environment that is supportive, fair, harmonious…they will be inspired to contribute to that support, fairness, harmony… partly because they are encouraged to share what is given to them through gratitude, but also because if they don’t they risk losing it all…

On the other hand, when you put an individual in an environment that is unequal, discriminatory, then their inspiration quickly turns to resentment… According to Michael M. Crow; humansthrough remarkable manipulation of limited knowledge, brute force, and overwhelming arrogance, have shaped a world that in all likelihood is not sustainable, e.g.; standard of living, all stuff, quality of life, inequalities… According to Dr. Eli Goldratt; Just stop doing the stupid stuff! The rest is genius!

Many believe that disruptive business shifts through innovation (i.e., shifts that either threaten the very survival of an organization, or provide a hyper-growth opportunity) is the ‘new normal’… and leaders must have specific competencies that enable them to navigate through a wide-range of business ambiguities, uncertainties…

Meaning that business leaders must be able to push personal boundaries, challenge assumptions, take steps into the unknown with the view that failure is not failure but rather a stepping stone for business sustainability… To lead disruptive innovation leaders must disrupt their most fundamental mindsets and established behaviors… According to Soren Kaplan; leaders must acknowledge and embrace a life of continuous ambiguity and uncertainty as they navigate through disruptive change and create breakthroughs that leapfrog traditional ways of doing business…

Webster’s dictionary defines disruptive as– to cause (something) to be unable to continue in the normal way, to interrupt the normal progress or activity of (something)… and for business enterprises this can be very powerful stuff… What do disruptive businesses have in common? According to Steve Faber; most business disruption has at least one of the following: 1) They are not satisfied with the status quo and delivered a user experience that customers did not even know they wanted until they got it… 2) They broke the business model mold and rationalized that just because everyone else markets a certain way does not mean it’s the only way, or best way, they looked for something new… 3) They created an exceptional value proposition… Fundamentally there are no set rules for disruption– disruptive business is about doing things differently, it’s about redefining the user experience, it’s about revolutionizing the customer…

It’s the Holy Grail for many companies– disruptive business innovation that transforms or creates new markets, for example; music, entertainment, computing, mobile phone, book publishing, photography, healthcare industries…all have experienced dramatic change due to new technologies, business models, distribution channels, government regulations, market expectations… Companies in these industries have been forced to experiment and change, and not just to compete but to survive…

Research suggests that successful disruptors typically work to bring about change in two or three links in the chain, simultaneously, for example, consider Apple’s concurrent innovations in– supply chain, manufacturing, and customer experience: The product itself is simply the most visible link in the disruption chain… According to Charles Darwin; it’s not the strongest of the species that survive; it’s the ones most adaptable to change…

In the article How Your Company Can Harness the Future by Mary O’Hara-Devereaux writes: Business and the economy are changing so fast it is hard to keep up… Few things last forever, and it’s common for organizations to think their strategy, business model or unique technology are forever sustainable… but it’s leadership’s job to determine what aspects of an organization are unsustainable, e.g.; strategy, process, product, structure, customer base…

They must ask themselves: When will the useful life of any of these elements end? When is the best time to cease investment in it and switch to a new ‘growth curve’ early enough to be a leader? It’s leaderships’ job to identify and track the ever-present ‘signals’ that indicate the fate of their business; signals of potential ‘big things’ are all around the business on the periphery of awareness… leadership must pay special attention to signals that have the potential to be transformative, and that can greatly impact their business…

Leadership must look beyond the usual line-of-vision to other areas of society, industries, geographies… since often big changes germinate outside of their normal boundaries… Conventional wisdom can be described as those sets of beliefs that have become deeply embedded in a business culture, organization… that guides their behavior and decision-making, often semi-consciously. And, in many businesses conventional wisdom becomes a ‘sacred cow’, similar to a strategy; which over time decays and loses relevance, and far too often these sacred cows persist long after they have outlived their usefulness… When the business is being driven to respond to massive shifts; conventional wisdom becomes a serious impediment to sustainability and survival…

In the article Leading Disruptive Business Innovationby Soren Kaplan writes: Perhaps the most defining characteristic of disruptive innovation is the great uncertainty that it creates for leaders, organizations, entire industries… However, while a disruptive innovation can be seen and understood in retrospect, it’s debatable whether it can be transferred into a formal, repeatable process. In today’s turbulent environment, leading disruptive business innovation is more like– best principles than best practices, and it requires a disruptive approach to management itself…

According to Gary Hamel; new problems demand new principles and put bluntly, there’s no way to build tomorrow’s essential organizational capabilities, i.e.; resilience, innovation and employee engagement– atop the scaffolding of 20th century management principles… Leaders must embrace ambiguity, live with uncertainty, confront the critiques of naysayers, inside and outside, of an organizations… According to Jeff Bezos; any time you do something that’s disruptive there will be critics… Navigating disruptive business innovation is a critical leadership challenge, and a strategy that contains specific principles that form the basis by which leaders can harness the associated uncertainty and ambiguity to reinvent their business, organization, industry, include the following:

Listen– Start with Yourself, Not the Market: Contrary to conventional wisdom, disruptive leadership is not about analyzing customer needs, creating specifications to meet each need, and building great products, services to meet them, for example; Steve Jobs at Apple never conducted market research, rather they defined products and user experience that they, themselves, wanted. Asking a market what it wants is fruitless, since consumers don’t know what they are missing until they are given it… Disruptive innovation come from those who ‘innovate for themselves’ because they want to make a difference for others…

Explore– Go outside to stretch the inside: Leading through disruption requires an agile mind that appreciates ambiguity. Disruptive innovators know that uncertainty contains as much opportunity as it does risk. But to make this mindset practical, it’s essential to ‘push’ personal, team, and organizational comfort zones… When leaders remain safely rooted in how things are done today, they miss the kind of insight and market impact needed to protect themselves from, or create, a true disruption… Leaders must push themselves, their teams, and their organizations out of the proverbial corporate comfort zone and into uncharted territory…

Act– Take small simple steps, again and again and again: Disruptive business leadership involves putting a flexible ‘stake’ in the ground for a specific opportunity, then taking a series of actions to intentionally challenge assumptions and rapidly change direction as many times as necessary. Leading business disruption requires a mindset of continuous adaptation, where leadership determines which specific small steps will have the greatest impact. While taking this approach can indeed help minimize risk, it requires leaders to approach ‘planning’ in a flexible way that allows for major shifts in goals, metrics, timelines…

Persist– Take the surprise out of failure: Leaders who face the fear-of-failure head-on are most prepared to use business set-backs as springboards to success. Leading disruptive business innovation involves taking action in the face of uncertainty; then viewing the results and learning from them, then modify assumptions and behaviors based on these results. Even when the results are ‘negative’, the goal is to persist in using the insights gained from the experience… This mental model feeds optimism, inspires further action, which results in type of ‘optimistic persistence’ required to weather the tough times…

Seize– Make the journey part of the (surprise) destination: The path to disruptive business innovation is not predictable or linear, and ‘luck’ can play a significant role in long-term business success. Leaders who capitalize on ‘good luck’, and who are best prepared for ‘bad luck’, achieve far superior results than peers. Most business view uncertainty and, especially ‘surprises’, as things to prevent and avoid: The underlying assumption is that predictability and control are the cornerstones of leadership… Leading disruptive business innovation, however, is fundamentally laden with surprises, which are the essence of uncertainty. Managing ‘surprises’ with purposeful agility – versus– disregarding the insights or messages they may contain is critical for business sustainability…

There are fundamental disruptive business shifts underway driven by major structural shifts in the economy, as well as, business model innovations, dramatic changes in technology… It’s an era where technology and society are evolving faster than business can naturally adapt. These sets the stage for new era of leadership and new generation of business models, which are charging behind a mantra of ‘adapt or die’…

Perhaps the most important takeaway from research is the pure ambition to make business relevant in a digital era… According to Brian Solis; businessis faced with a quandary as it invests resources and budgets in existing technology and business strategies– it’s business as usual- versus- shifts of unknowns within markets, customer behavior…

Leadership for disruptive business innovation requires a new way of thinking. A mindset focused on ‘leapfrogging’, which means approaching the world with intent of changing the game, or the way the game is played: Creating or doing something radically new or different that produces a significant leap forward… These opportunities are not limited only to products and services, but also they include; reinventing business processes, revolutionizing business functions…

Navigating disruptive business change involves finding creative solutions and opportunities within seemingly impossible challenges. When you push beyond the limits of your comfort zones, you increase your creative problem solving, strategic thinking capabilities… According to Soren Kaplan; disruptive business innovation is no longer the occasional exception, it’s the rule… If business leadership is not proactively creating disruption, they will eventually need to respond to it…

However, most organizations are set-up to promote and reward the virtues of predictability and control, which are the exact opposites of what characterizes periods of disruptive business innovation…According to Dee McCrorey; there’s no guarantee that playing it safe will keep you safe and, in fact, it’s highly unlikely…

Leadership Vs. Management; kill the word ‘manager’… kick it, shoot it, just be done with it. One of the oldest running myths in the business world is that leaders and managers are somehow different, but in fact– leaders are managers, and managers are leaders…

According to Ronald E. Riggio; leadership and management are fundamentally different, well sort of… while we may be able to divide tasks into those that require ‘management’ (i.e., decision-making, record keeping…) and the more abstract aspects of ‘leadership’ (i.e., creating vision, inspiring followers…) the truth is that anyone who supervises others needs to be both manager and leader, to be effective...

According to Peter Drucker; the excesses of modern corporations are directly related to bloated concept of leadership… businesses have more than enough leaders; what they really need are more competent managers who can do the hard work of– decision-making, planning, coaching… The typical business leader is like the leader of a marching band– they wave a stick while other people do all the work…

According to Greg Schinkel; have we shifted reasoning too far towards developing leaders instead of developing effective managers? Differentiating management and leadership typically involves labeling managers as perpetuating status quo, while leaders blaze new trails and inspire employees to follow them towards grand vision. In reality, we need solid management and supervisory skills to actually get work done and deliver value to customers and results to the bottom line…

It was once believed that leaders were ‘born not made’, this has given way to a widespread assumption that leadership is something that can be learned and therefore taught… Since the 1970s an industry has grown up to meet that demand, one that is valued at $50 billion by Forbes. There are nearly 400 accredited business schools in U.S. alone and many more around the world, teaching a curriculum driven by thousands of leadership experts who make a very decent living writing, speaking, teaching the fundamentals of this relatively new topic…

According to Henry Mintzberg; we have an obsession with leadership, by focusing on a single person– leadership becomes part of the syndrome of individuality– that is undermining many organizations… and, by the excessive promotion of leadership, we demote everyone else… In business, there is surprisingly little evidence that directly links leaders to performance of many organizations.

According to James Meindl; research found that the actions of many leaders, CEOs, accounted for just 15% of the variation in a company’s performance… According to Krystyn Tully; leadership is important, for sure; but, so is management… If you’re trying to do something important, then the idea of leadership is a distraction: It’s irrelevant… Just put your head down and do the best you can… History can decide if you were a true leader, manager, or whatever… you’ve got more important things to think about…

In the article Leadership vs. Management: Dangerous Distinction? by Bob Sutton writes: Thousands of books are written on leadership and management– and there are several academic journals devoted entirely to the subject… In the process of reviewing much of the literature– I’ve been bumping into an old and popular distinction that has always bugged me, i.e.; ‘leading vs. managing’…

According to Warren Bennis; there is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important: To ‘manage’ means– to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct… Whereas, ‘leading’ is influencing, guiding in a direction, actions, opinions… The distinction is crucial...Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing… Also, as I continue to re-read the leadership literature, it suggest that some leaders see their job as just coming up with big, vague ideas, and then treat the details of implementation as mere management work for other workers to do…

I am all for grand visions, strategies… but, the people (leaders) who seem to have the most success are those that have a deep understanding of the details required to make them work– or if they don’t, they have wisdom to surround themselves with people (managers) who can offset their weaknesses, and who have the courage to argue with them when there is no clear path between their dreams and reality…

I am not rejecting the distinction between leadership and management, but the best leaders do something that might be most properly called– a mixture of leadership and management, or at least lead in a way that constantly takes into account importance of management… Some of the worst senior executives use distinctions between leadership and management as an excuse to avoid learning-knowing details so they can more clearly understand– the risk, rewards… and select the right strategies…According to Bennis; to do the right thing, a leader needs to understand what it takes to do things right…

In the article Leadership is Overratedby wally writes: The great cry of management literature for the last twenty years has been: We must have more leaders! We must have more leaders! It’s nonsense… Pick up the dictionary and look up ‘leader’… It will probably be something like this; leader: one who leads. .. Note, that we are talking about a leader as being defined by what they do… The fact is anyone who is responsible for performance of a group is a leader, because people follow the leader’s example; that’s what leaders do, they set the example, the direction… If people follow you, then you’re a leader…

You can lead well or you can lead poorly, but you’re leading and that’s about defining, implementing the group’s– purpose, direction, culture… When you’re making those kinds of decisions, when you’re setting the example which defines culture, or when you’re talking to people about– why and what they do is important… then you’re doing leadership work, and you are a leader… Whereas when you are managing, which involves setting, implement priorities… that isn’t any more or any less noble than leadership work… Both must be done and done well… So, don’t be misled by the jargon and hype; If you are responsible for a– company, group, team… then– you are doing leadership, you are doing management, you are doing supervision…

In the article Underrated Managers, Overrated Leaders by Harvey Schachter writes: In many organizations ‘leadership’ is considered the high-level, which is distinct and far more important than ‘management’… According to Henry Mintzberg;leaders who separate leadership from management are a danger to the organization… Too many leaders are disconnected from what is going on in organizations.

He points to the late Steve Jobs, celebrated as a leader and visionary, who changed the world with his innovations… Mr. Jobs, the co-founder of Apple Inc., was hailed as the ultimate leader. And, his lack of people skills has been viewed as evidence he was a terrible manager. His success seems to prove the point that strong leadership trumps management: If you’re a great leader, you can be a crappy manager and still succeed…

But Prof. Mintzberg has a different view: Steve Jobs was truly extraordinary. I am not sure that you would call him a leader, other than perhaps in a tech sense… He was not a natural leader of people. That happened through his intricate knowledge, management of the product of the organization… Also, according to Prof. Mintzberg; Jack Welch, who has been called the best executive of the past century, but he didn’t leave any legacy other than a better-managed corporation than the one he inherited when he took the helm at G. E.

There are no special products that he developed, no new industries or even segments of industries he created. He was a manager– highly gifted one– and because of that he was very successful... So, why are so many executives (leaders) disconnected with their organization? It’s because they bought into the going notion they would rather be leader than manager, thus they need not know– any of the nuts and bolts… but just provide vision…

In the article Manager as Leader by mike writes: The false dichotomy between leaders and managers stems from the absurd notion that organizations need ‘leaders’ at the top, and staff of ‘managers’ at all other levels below them– it’s a modern form of Plato’s class distinction between ‘kings/philosophers’ (leaders), ‘guardians’ (managers), and ‘workers/ slaves’… It’s early form of Taylorism… According to J. Adair; leadership vs. management is one of those topics that re-appears over and over again. I have fallen victim to many long discussions where both parties were so assured of their correctness they just keep repeating clichés, such as– ‘leaders’ lead people, ‘managers’ manage tasks… there is a difference; but, difference is not all that great because– managers are leaders, just as leaders are managers…

We must all stop looking, waiting, anticipating… for the emergence of better leaders and, instead, take responsibility for the quality of our own organizations! It’s common practice, no matter at what level people are in the organization (i.e., employee, supervisor, manager, VP…); they all chant the same mantra; if only we had better leadership we would not be in position we are today! Variations on this theme include; When upper management get their act together; I’ll be able to do my job correctly!

Another favorite; It’s got to start from the top! Surely, every organization needs a person who will remind them of– what the organization is trying to achieve, and why it’s important… but, leadership must come from all levels within an organization… and, not just from one person designated as the ‘leader’. According to Colleen Sharen; importance of leadership is vastly over-rated, leaders are not the silver bullet solution for most problems, issues…

According to Henry Mintzberg; emphasis on leadership has led to emphasis on style over substance, and ‘leader’ over ‘follower’… By the excessive promotion of leadership we, in fact, demote everyone else. We create clusters of followers who must be driven to perform, instead of leveraging the natural propensity of people to cooperate, collaborate… in groups…

However, by all indications general public, businesses, academics… are convinced we need leadership… Maybe because we need to believe that someone knows what to do in these crazy, complex, confusing times… Perhaps we need to jettison the platonic ideal of the one perfect leader… According to Mintzberg; suggests that there are few effective managers, and maybe we need to ditch the idea of– leaders, managers, followers... What could be more natural than to see organizations not as mystical hierarchies of authority, but as communities of engagement, where every member is respected and so returns that respect…

We’re told how important it is to be a leader. Every college in U.S. claims to be ‘creating tomorrow’s leaders’… We’re told to ‘develop our leadership skills’ if we want a good job or to get ahead in life… Leaders are important, we’re told… but, too many leaders and not enough followers is a problem.

Nothing gets done if everyone is in charge… Leaders without followers are useless… When Henry Mintzberg was asked; What type of leadership would you recommend for the 21st century? he answered without delay: Less leadership and more people who actually do stuff…

Expose Confessions of CEOs– really; but could it be that executive leaders who appear boldly confident are wracked by personal doubt? Aren’t the men-women who spend their days in the C-Suite immune to human foibles that plague most mere mortals?

According to Jan Hill; I bear witness that the inner world of many organizations’ most senior leaders, and many have confirmed, that these executives doubt themselves more often than you might think… Here are a few CEO confessions that I’ve heard: *Every day I’m disabled by an overarching irrational fear that I will fail… *I’m just sitting here playing with broken toys. Why doesn’t my executive team get it? Where did I go wrong?… *I feel like I’m an imposter. What if they find me out?… *We all scream in different ways: I just scream softly, but no one hears it…

According tomicah; I confess that the lessons learned from getting punched in the face, as a CEO, is life changing: I am not a CEO today. I know now what a CEO should be, and I am not it. I don’t have the love or understanding of structure to be effective. Instead, what I am really good at is introducing people and finding ways for companies to work collaboratively, which is my current role and I am happy with it… I often think about what I could have accomplished if I had a bit more maturity about the management of the business. While the sale of the company certainly was a success, in terms of being a CEO, I failed…

As producer of ‘The Motley Fool Radio Show’, Mac Greer heard a number of CEOs fess-up to their failures– business decisions that didn’t ultimately make for great business. Here are a few favorites:

According to Jim Keyes, 7-Eleven:We packaged a more convenient pantyhose for ladies and it has helped us to bring more female shoppers into the store, but we were a little bit out-there when we introduced fish-net hose at 7-Eleven Stores. I would say that was one of the dumber decisions…

According to Dick Kinzel, Cedar Fair: We put a $4 million building around this dog ride and named it ‘Disaster Transport’. I remember on opening day a gentleman walked out of the ride and came over to me and said; You named that one right– that’s a disaster. And you know what, he was right. That was by far the dumbest thing I ever did…

According to Bob Davies, Church & Dwight: In the mid-’70s, we went zooming into the personal deodorant and antiperspirant business with an aerosolized can of baking soda. We had two huge problems. Many of the cans clogged, and those that didn’t clog did worse– they massively stung people’s underarms. We lost around $6 million in that venture and that was back when we were a tiny little company. I almost lost my job…

According to Jack Soden, Elvis Enterprises: We licensed a company that made bedroom slippers. They were big, furry slippers and they had a rubber image of Elvis’ head on the toes. It was one of those things that when you saw them in the store, it was like: What were we thinking? We pulled the license and got them off the market as fast as we could…

In the article Confessionsof Remarkable CEO by Kevin Song writes: Our experience at coaching, advising CEOs has allowed us to distill key insights into challenges that confront many CEOs. While CEOs encounter countless obstacles, we have found truth in these four confessions, with our added notes:

Confession #1:I am frustrated with politics and discord among my leadership team. They do not seem to get along, and we are not achieving the execution we need to grow the organization… When an executive team does not function well together, the organization suffers– sometimes, individual executives may simply not work well together or seem to be working from ‘a different page’. Other times, an individual executive is simply not performing at a level worthy of the organization’s highest leadership team. In any case, an under-performing executive team should alarm the CEO…

Confession #2:We lack effective planning sessions that generate real and desirable results — our meeting sessions lack passion, direction, and focus, which are needed in order to produce action and positive outcomes… Does your organization wrestle to gaining advancement in executing strategic goals? Maybe your organization is slow to act on a new plan. One manifestation of this confession is unlikely in your strategic planning process. Or, it might just be the feeling that– we don’t need more knowing, we need more doing; for some reason, you are not performing on the fundamentals you already know well…

Confession #3:We cannot seem to get ahead of the competitors– after all research and money we spent; we did not gain much competitive advantage… No one sees this more clearly than CEOs. No matter how good results of the organization happen to be, you see weaknesses, breakdowns in systems and performance. An opportunity exists to tighten process, remove waste… while continuing to optimize business results. There are numerous gaps that, when closed, produce strong financial performance…

Confession #4:We tried many ways to improve bottom-line, but they don’t seem to give us the results we need; I know we are not producing the most effective results from our talents and resources… At some point, it’s natural for CEOs to wonder if they have hit personal limits as leaders. They may express feeling of swimming in water that is over their heads. While the feeling is more personal than organizational in nature, it can impact the organization’s ability to produce results as greatly as any of the other challenges…

In the article Top CEO Challenges by Dominic Barton (McKinsey Partner) with notes by McDwight Frindt writes: As someone who spends much time with many CEOs from the world’s leading companies, I have gain interesting insights, which are very consistent with the overall CEO population. Here they are:

Struggle with loneliness: The higher you get, the harder it is to find the right sources to trust…Having access to a peer group and being able to work issues with people who face the same types of challenges you do every day can be amazingly helpful for a top leader…

Lack of time: CEOs continue to balance an overflowing plate and prioritizing becomes key… This is something everyone is facing these days from the top office throughout an organization. We have found that the key issues here are in the ‘human dimension’– meaning that things often get slowed down between people through miscommunications, misunderstandings and upsets…

Appetite for cross-sector knowledge: CEOs and companies across the globe are looking at what can be learned from industries, companies… other than their own. Cross-pollination at its best. What can marketers learn from HR? What can IT learn from sales?This is another area we find that communication is critical and is not happening at an optimum level. Often groups, teams, and departments become ‘silos’. There is usually a lot that can be learned by an organization and its leaders from within, from its own people. The challenge is opening up the flow for that to happen…

Understanding transitions: Leaders transition in and out of positions, jobs, and companies. They are consistently looking for help with these transitions…Transitions are often fraught with emotions and complexities…

Battle for talent: The biggest competitive advantage of any company in the future is going to be people. Often CEOs don’t know the scope of talent available to them within their own company. This is a source of frustration for many…It’s amazing how much knowledge and information inside a company does not flow. Again, challenges in the ‘human dimension’ often hinder this flow. Fear, politics and other factors can keep key information like ‘how talented is your talent pool’ from being clear to those at the top…

In the article Confessions of a Natural Born Follower by Kelly McCausey writes: I don’t consider myself a natural-born leader; in fact, I’m exact opposite – I was a natural-born follower… Being a leader was so ‘not’ natural for me. Any time I found myself having to make decisions, I naturally sought guidance from other sources to figure out what I need to do, next... I didn’t trust myself, didn’t trust my experience, and just desperately wanted someone to tell me what I needed to do and where I should be headed, e.g.: What if I led people in wrong direction? What if I made mistake and hurt someone? What if I wasn’t smart enough to handle the job? What if,what if, what if???

You may not believe me, but still today I sometimes have to force myself to ‘be’ the leader. When I was a follower, I saw leaders as– confident, powerful, popular people who seemed to be naturally gifted in the art of– perfect words, actions… What I am finding more and more is that most of the time, even with a plan, experience and even guidance, we (leaders-CEOs) sometimes feel like we are free-falling off of a cliff…

However, what I’ve learned is that perhaps none of us-CEOs are the kind of leaders that I assumed existed; none are perfect and none found success easily. All of us are often scared, even terrified from time-to-time. All of us have faced and overcome our own; What Ifs… Most of all, I got the realization that it doesn’t matter if you aren’t born and bred to be a leader. In fact, most people aren’t… What does matter is how much you are willing to face your fears, and do what you must do…

All too often, we see CEOs make critical mistakes that can lead to dangerous repercussions for them and their organizations… According to Ken Sundheim; since I started my firm, you could say that my philosophies and practices have changed dramatically. But rather than ‘change’, my business philosophies and skills have a more positive– ‘evolutionary’ trajectory… whereas, ‘change’ is more abrupt manifestation of motion, improvement… In the end, my ‘confession’ is that as a young CEO, or in any state of business leadership, you can never stop examining yourself, and you can never be afraid to try, and fail…

At a layer barely below the conscious surface, we all know and recognize the key behaviors that separate effective leaders from train wrecks… Rarely do we get such crisp opportunities to observe and learn… and that old cliché about– crises being the true proving grounds for leaders will never become obsolete… According to Andreas Souvaliotis; it all really comes down to the three classic; ‘Cs’ of leadership, when faced with a sudden challenge:

Confront! Leaders are human and the vast majority of humans are actually afraid of confrontation. Our instincts guide us to avoid conflict for as long as possible and yet, when a crisis is headed our way and we’re in charge of any kind of human organization, our best bet is to confront the crisis early…

Communicate! Leaders who rely on ‘spokespeople’ at a time of crisis are abdicators. That’s a catastrophic misstep and, sadly, a very common one…

Care!Don’t just say you ‘do’ — show it; prove it, own the problem… Empathy counts for more than just about anything else at a time of crisis… Failure is in the eye of the beholder and confessions are for wimps… You should not ask; Who am I to do this? but rather; Who am I ‘not ‘to do this? A great CEO is someone who can live in uncertainty, chaos… and say: I know there is a better way…

Rule #1: Smart leaders– Shut Up! Listen! Stop Talking! If you’re talking, you’re not listening. This rule also applies to the talking inside your head. If you’re thinking intently about what you want to say, you’re not listening to what is being said…

According to OpProf; some people should simply shut up. In a rapidly changing world, smart leaders find more business opportunities by listening rather than by talking. While other leaders insist-persist in dogmatic soliloquy– and, the audience is disinterested, disengaged, dying for someone to end their misery– no one is listening. Yammering– that’s what stupid leaders do– they yammer-on about something they think is ultimately important but their audience has long since quit listening… To be a smart leader, you need to shut up and listen…

To lead radical transformation in business, organizations… quit talking and start listening. Listen to the people in the know, listen to employees and vendors. Listen to the hard and soft trends. Listen to wise advise in a changing world. Quit thinking you are always right and listen… Those who listen do far more than those who like to hear themselves talk…

According to Graham Seel; I have come to realize that leaders who get caught up in their own non-stop self-a-thons are usually driven by shadier subconscious agenda; the gnawing anxiety to prove themselves; the need to ensure that others know they are significant; the dizzying desperation to justify their leadership role…One of the fundamental hallmarks of strong leadership is self-awareness… The irony is that when a leader is relaxed, focused on others, stops trying so hard to impress people… they become much more effective, inspirational, and respected by others… Be the smart leader– shut up, listen…

In the article Why Most Leaders Need to Shut Up, Listenby Mike Myatt writes: Great leaders are great listeners, and therefore my message is a simple one– talk less and listen more. The best leaders are proactive, strategic, intuitive listeners… They recognize knowledge and wisdom are not gained by talking, but by listening. Take a moment and reflect back on any great leader who comes to mind… you’ll find they are very adept at reading between the lines. The best leaders possess uncanny ability to understand what is not said, witnessed, heard…

Want to become better leader? Stop talking, start listening. Being a leader should not be viewed as license to increase the volume of rhetoric. Rather astute leaders know there is far more to be gained by surrendering the floor than by dominating it. In this age of instant communication everyone seems to be in such a rush to communicate what’s on their mind, they fail to realize the value of everything that can be gleaned from the minds of others. Show me a leader who doesn’t recognize the value of listening to others and I’ll show you a train-wreck in the making…

It’s simply not possible to be a great leader without being a great communicator. This partially accounts for why we don’t encounter great leadership more often. The big miss for most leaders is that they fail to understand that the purpose of communication is not to message, but to engage – this requires listening. Don’t be fooled into thinking that being heard is more important than hearing. The first rule in communication is to seek understanding before seeking to be understood.

Listen to customers, competitors, peers, subordinates… almost universally, the smartest person in the room is not the one doing all the talking – it’s the person asking the few relevant and engaging questions and doing most of the listening. Leadership is about listening, and action. That said, leaders who act before they understand don’t tend to achieve the outcomes they desire… great talkers are a dime a dozen, but great listeners are a rare breed…

In the article Three Words that Can Save the Business byMark McIntyre writes: Stop, Look, Listen… Get your head out of the sand of daily operations, look outside. What do you see? Not through the corner-office window but from a perch with a nice view of customers. What are they doing with the product? How satisfied are they with the experience? What alternatives do you see them turning to? Then look to your own imagination and demand that it give you a good look at the worst-case scenario of the future…

Listen, put your ear to the ground: What do you hear? What do Web whispers, blog rumors tell you? Remember that venture capitalist you met last year? Give her a call, ask what got her attention. Take everything you hear seriously… catalog it, then ask colleagues to listen to you… It may often seem like dominating technology companies get blindsided— that they are toppled by stealth disruptive forces they could not have seen coming.

It’s a great story line for Silicon Valley startups, but it’s almost never the truth. Instead, many leaders in high-performing companies are deeply addicted with their success, such that they are unable to overcome their own cognitive blinders… and then they fail to react to market changes, new competitors… whereas, smart leaders are open to new ideas, suggestions… they are always looking, listening, thinking…

In the articleAre You Listening or Just Waiting to Talk? by Daniel Newman writes: Is listening a lost art? In a world full of so much to say, it can be so hard to really listen. But if you want to be a leader, you have to realize that you must listen. For leadership is often founded in empathy: It starts with the phrase; Are You Listening or Just Waiting to Talk? Have you ever caught yourself actively brainstorming… carefully planning your eloquent response amidst a conversation… but, ironically you are only comprehending a fraction of the messages because your focus isn’t on the conversation, but rather on your response– Bite your tongue, if necessary, and overcoming the urge to talk, just focus on listening…

Some people struggle with being a good enough listener because their mind tends to play chess. Constantly thinking about what is next or what else needs to be done. However, I have found, without a doubt, that when you want to move a business and relationships forward, there is nothing more compelling than being a great listener. The act of focusing on what the person is saying, rather than what you want to say… allows you to connect and to truly gain understanding of the other person. It’s simple, just– stop waiting to talk, and start ‘really’ listening…

It is simply impossible to become a great leader without being a great communicator: Just note; the sentence doesn’t say become a– great talker, big difference… According to Mike Myatt; great leaders know when to dial it up, dial it down, dial it off… Simply broadcasting your message ad nauseam will not have the same result as engaging in meaningful conversation, but this assumes that you understand that the greatest form of discourse takes place within a conversation, and not a lecture or monologue. When you reach that point in life where the light bulb goes off, and you begin to understand that knowledge is not gained by flapping lips, but by removing ear wax, you have taken the first step to becoming a skilled communicator and great leader…

According to Mike Figliuolo; if you simply want others around you to think you’re brilliant, there’s an easy and elegant way to do so: Just shut up, listen. When others get to share opinions and ideas, they feel important. You should actively solicit thoughts and listen in an engaged manner. By listening, you can come across as exponentially more brilliant…

Have you found it difficult, at times, to keep your mouth shut? Do you actively monitor your– ‘talking to listening ratio’ in conversations? Do you routinely ask ‘yourself’ — what have I learned from this person (you) in the last 5 minutes? And, when the answer is ‘nothing’: Do you shut up? Remember that the letters in the word ‘listen’ also spell ‘silent’…

Management style is a method of leadership that’s employed for running a business, organization, project… it’s methodology for managing people, resources, expectations… and for achieving business goals, objectives…

its getting employees to work together in harmony on a common platform and achieving the very best performance, productivity… it’s an approach for making decisions that relates to the organization, managers, and subordinates…

Management styles must be adaptable, such that they are consistent with the culture of the organization, nature of the task, nature of the workforce, and personality and skills of leadership. Every style has its own unique characteristics and strong points, shortcomings, methods for getting work done… According to Jack Welch;my main job was developing talent. I was a gardener providing water and other nourishment to our top people. Of course, I had to pull out some weeds from time to time too…

According to Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt; the style of management is dependent upon the prevailing circumstance; leaders should exercise a range of management styles and should deploy them as appropriate… According to bhattathiri;Western idea of management centers on making the worker (and the manager) more efficient and more productive…but it has failed in ensuring betterment of individual life and social welfare. It has remained by and large a soulless edifice and an oasis of plenty for a few in the midst of poor quality of life for many.

There is an urgent need to re-examine prevailing management disciplines – their objectives, scope and content. Management should be redefined to underline the development of the worker as a person, as a human being, and not as a mere wage-earner. With this changed perspective, management can become an instrument in the process of social and indeed national development.

According to Björn Stansvik; there is no blanket answer to the question: What is the best management style? Different styles are called for at different times in different situations with different colleagues… There is no one style which suits all people and all situations. The most effective managers and leaders must find ways to adapt their individual styles– it’s often said of Sir Alex Ferguson; he knows which players need an arm round the shoulder and which ones need a kick up the backside...

In the articleU.S. and European Management Styles by James Heskett Baker writes; there are marked differences in the social environment for management in Europe and U. S. In some parts of Europe, they foster management policies that may encourage more balance in a manager’s life, between work and private activities and risk and stability; whether this will produce sustained economic superiority or a model to be emulated in the U.S. is debatable…

According to Antonio De Luca; if one has to generalize, it’s fair to say that U.S. pursue risk, and Europeans seek stability– (leading) to fewer opportunities with more limited financial rewards, but possibly more balance for Europeans. The solution, as usual, is a sensible convergence of these two nuanced cultural approaches…

According to Roy Bingham; points out that U.S. management style seems to work best when the key needs are– speed, aggression, last-minute genius, take-chance, inspiring leadership. In boom times when it’s expansion at all costs–pick U.S. style. At other times the more deliberate, consultative European approach is your ally…

According to Jose Pedro Goncalves; I take issue that there is a European style of management, pointing out that there is no one style. In some parts of Europe (as a manager)– I’m a human being. In other parts; I’m just a number. In general we (Europeans) are more human, but less flexible…

According to Dr. B.V. Krishnamurthy; the search for that elusive concept of the ‘best management style’ continues, although one could argue from lessons learned that there may not be a ‘best’ style, for example; centralization and decentralization can go together, flex-time and tele-working are meant to improve productivity, and many of the ‘either/or’ concepts can be treated as complementary, to be used with discretion…

India management style– according to Gunasekar C Raharatnam; I doubt if there is clear approach that can be described today. Some might point towards the many family owned and managed business organizations in India, some of these are large corporate entities and leaders in their industry but most are small tightly controlled family businesses. Even such family businesses are increasingly being controlled by the recent generations of well-educated inheritors. The management ‘styles’ are changing and perhaps shifting more towards Western styles that are being pushed by management schools…

India is an enormously hierarchical society and this, obviously, has an impact on management style. It’s imperative that there is a boss and that the manager acts like a boss. The position of manager demands a certain amount of role-playing from the boss and a certain amount of deferential behavior from his subordinates… Managing people in India requires a level of micro-management which many western business people feel extremely uncomfortable with but, which is likely to bring the best results…

Brazil management style considers a manager’s personal style to be of great significance and it could almost be said that his or her vision/bearing is viewed as of great an importance as their technical abilities… Relationships are of key importance in this Latin culture and the boss and subordinates work hard to foster a relationship based on trust and respect for personal dignity. First and foremost, managers are expected to manage.

The boss is expected to give direct instructions and it is expected that these instructions will be carried out without too much discussion or debate (if there is debate it should be done in private to avoid showing public disrespect to the hierarchy)… Decision-making in Brazil is often reserved for the most senior people. Taking the time to build the proper working relationship is crucial to success. Coming in as an outsider is often difficult, so it is advisable to have a third-party introduction… Often the people you negotiate with will not have decision-making authority. Decisions are made by the highest-ranking person.

China management style tends to follow Confucian philosophy: Relationships are deemed to be unequal and ethical behavior demands that these inequalities are respected: Older person should automatically receive respect from the younger and the senior from the subordinate. This is the cornerstone of all the China management thinking and issues such as empowerment and open access to all information are viewed by the Chinese as, at best, bizarre Western notions…

Management is the directive, with the senior manager giving instructions to their direct reports who in turn pass on the instructions down the line. Subordinates do not question the decisions of superiors – that would be to show disrespect and be the direct cause of loss of face (mianzi) for all concerned… Although Western type management styles are beginning to have some influence with the younger generations…

Japan management style emphasis the need for information flow from the bottom of the company to the top: Senior management is largely a supervisory rather than ‘hands-on’ approach. Policy is often originated at the middle-levels of a company before being passed upwards for ratification. The strength of this approach is obviously that those tasked with the implementation of decisions have been actively involved in the shaping of policy…

The higher a Japanese manager rises within an organization, the more important it is that he appears unassuming and not ambitious. Individual personality and forcefulness are not seen as the prerequisites for effective leadership. The key task for a Japanese manager is to provide the environment in which the group can flourish. In order to achieve this he must be accessible at all times and willing to share knowledge within the group. Manager is seen as a type of father figure who expects and receives loyalty and obedience from colleagues. In return, the manager is expected to take a holistic interest in the well-being of those colleagues: It is a mutually beneficial two-way relationship…

Russian management style tends to be centralized and directive. The boss, especially the ‘big boss’, is expected to issue direct instructions for subordinates to follow. There is little consultation with people lower down company hierarchy. Indeed too much consultation from a senior manager could be seen as a sign of weakness and lack of decisiveness. Middle managers have little power over strategy or input in significant strategic decisions.

The most powerful middle managers are the ones who have the most immediate entrée to the decision-maker at the top of the organization. There is little point in wasting time debating with middle managers who do not have an easy access to the top. The most significant reason for delay in reaching a decision in Russia is that the decision has not been put in front of the real decision-maker…

Several Observations About Management Styles by Noted Experts:Management ‘Theory Z’ is a name applied to three distinctly different psychological theories. One was developed by Abraham H. Maslow in his paper Theory-Z and another is Dr. William Ouchi’s so-called Japanese management style popularized during the Asian economic boom of the 1980s. The third was developed by W. J. Reddin in Managerial Effectiveness…

Abraham Maslow, a psychologist and the first theorist to develop a theory of motivation based upon human needs produced a theory that had three assumptions: First, human needs are never completely satisfied. Second, human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by need for satisfaction. Third, these needs can be classified according to a hierarchical structure of importance from the lowest to highest… Maslow’s Theory-Z in contrast to Theory-X, which stated that workers inherently dislike and avoid work and must be driven to it, and Theory-Y, which stated that work is natural and can be a source of satisfaction when aimed at higher order human psychological needs…

The original Theory-X and Theory-Y were both written by Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist who is considered to be one of the top business thinkers of all time… According to Dr. William Ouchi; Theory-Z must increase employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the employee, both on and off the job… The secret to Japanese success, according to Ouchi, is not technology, but a special way of managing people. This is a managing style that focuses on a strong company philosophy, a distinct corporate culture, long-range staff development, and consensus decision-making…

According to Brian Tracy; perhaps the most important single factor in what makes an environment a ‘great place to work’ is trust. Trust exists when you can say; I can make a mistake at work without being criticized or fired. When people feel free to try new things in order to do the job more effectively, increase quality, and improve customer service, all of their time, attention, and energy is focused outward, toward getting the job done better.

An inspiring leader is the most important person in any organization. The ‘leader sets the tone’ by the way he talks, behaves, responds to others, and treats people every day: When the leader treats people with courtesy and respect, everyone follows the lead and treats coworkers, and most important customers with the same courtesy and respect…

The biggest job of a manager is to drive out fear and, in fact, one of the best measures of a high performance workplace is the degree to which people feel free to question the boss and disagree with his ideas or decision… The greater freedom that people have to speak up and express themselves, without fear, the more positive and powerful the work environment becomes…

According to Lee Polevoion; successful business leaders must first understand their own management style, then they must be flexible enough to adapt-modify their style, as necessary, in order to motivate-cultivate the most productive work environment possible…

German Chancellor Angela Merkel started laying the groundwork Monday for an unprecedented three-way governing coalition, but faced headwinds from conservative allies reeling from losses to an upstart nationalist party and clamoring for a tougher line on immigration and security.

IN THEORY, overnight air travel should be wonderfully convenient. Instead of booking a hotel for the night and losing a day, travellers simply sleep while they fly. In reality, sleeping on a plane is hard, and at an airport tougher still. The chairs in terminals, nobody’s idea of comfort to begin with, tend to have […]

FINANCIERS with PhDs like to remind each other to “read your Kindleberger". The rare academic who could speak fluently to bureaucrats and normal people, Charles Kindleberger designed the Marshall Plan and wrote vast economic histories worthy of Tolstoy. “Read your Kindleberger” is just a coded way of saying “don’t forget this has all happened before”. […]

“IT WAS 2012…I was number 37,” says Ashwini, referring to the badge that was pinned on her shirt pocket. Her task was to go onto the stage and introduce herself to around 70 eligible bachelors and their parents. Families then conferred and, provided caste and religious background proved no obstacle, would approach the event’s moderator […]

Best Business Videos

Click 'PlayList' (upper left corner of video) for great business videos... Also, select the 'tab' at 'Business Top Videos--PlayList' (top of page) for more great business videos...

Search

Search for:

Subscribe via Email...

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Disclaimer Statements

Privacy: The owner of this blog does not share personal information with third-parties nor does the owner store information collected about your visit for use other than to analyze content performance through the use of cookies, which you can turn off at anytime by modifying your Internet browser’s settings. The owner is not responsible for the republishing of the content found on this blog on other Web sites or media without permission.

Blog Comments: The owner of this blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice.

Terms and Conditions: All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.